- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26754 MFA No. 2038 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2038 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: CHANDRASHEKAR S/O PRABHUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O: MADENAHALLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BY ITS MANAGER, NO.1119/8, M.C. ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401. 2. PRADEEP S/O CHIKKALINGAIAH, AGED: MAJOR, R/O: SI ALAGAHALLI, CHIKKA ARASINSKERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26754 MFA No. 2038 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6.4.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.126/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, CHANNAPATANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,62,547/-WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle (Respondent No.1) challenging the judgment and award dated 06.04.2013 in MVC No.126/2012 passed by Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Channapatna. 2. The parties are referred as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are that; on 27.07.2009, at around 2.00 p.m. the claimant was travelling in the tractor bearing Registration No.KA-11-M-413 sitting by the side of driver of the tractor. The driver of the tractor was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the claimant fell and sustained grievous injuries and he has - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26754 MFA No. 2038 of 2014 suffered permanent disability. Therefore prays to award compensation. 4. Notice was served on both the respondents before the Tribunal. Both the respondents have filed written statement denying all the contents of the claim petition and prays for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. The Tribunal after hearing both sides passed impugned award. 7. Heard the arguments. Undisputedly according to the contents of the claim petition, the petitioner-victim was traveling on the tractor sitting beside the driver of the vehicle and he fell due to rash and negligent driving of the said tractor. The Tribunal dismissed the claim against the insurer only on that ground. A Full Court of this court in the case of GADHILINGAPPA & ANOTHER vs. K.GULEPPA & OTHERS1 has held that a person travelling on a mud guard of the tractor 1 2021 ACJ 2588 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26754 MFA No. 2038 of 2014 cannot be construed as authorized passenger and his risk is not covered under the policy of insurance. 8. The facts of the present case is also similar to the facts of the above said case. In view of the same, the judgment rendered by the Tribunal that the owner is liable to pay compensation does not call for any interference. 9. On re-appreciation of evidence, the amount of compensation awarded is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. 10. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. Whatever amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE SNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK